Author
Topic: Most True Christians Are Sadists (Read 28085 times)

I was just thinking and browsing some of my previous posts on this topic, and out of the many, many things that BS has dodged and ignored there is actually one point that I would like to bring up again to be answered. As soon as he's done sulking and is ready to speak to me again, of course.

It was back previously when I was providing evidence for my character assessment of him, like he asked.

However you follow the god who does these things and more. You would commit these acts of suffering if you genuinely thought he was asking them of you, would you not? How can you claim to care about the suffering of others, when you fully support one who causes/ has caused untold levels of it.

Logged

"I drank what?!"- Socrates

"Dying for something when you know you'll be resurrected is not a sacrifice.It's a parlour trick."- an aquaintance

Philip of Macedon: (via messenger) If we enter Sparta, we will raze all your buildings and ravage all your women.Spartan Reply: If.

Also, you are NOT God. You did not create the universe, our planet, the water, the sand, the sun, the moon, the animals, plants, or any of us. Your mind is incapable of grasping the enormity and complexity of the vastness of God's existence or any of His creation. Therefore, until you can do such things, you are in a no position to dictate the manner in which they should function.

ie . Until you become president of the United States you have no right to whine and judge him, or to tell him what his job is supposed to be. Don't be sending him an email complaining about Obamacare or that he plans on taxing everything that has sugar of any sort in it, because he knows what's best for you. He's president, you're not, so shut up and put up.

Your close. I have no reservations about conceding that the kind of proof being requested does not exist. However, I will not go so far as to concede that Christianity is as flawed as some of the other so-called “religions” I have studied.

That doesn't really answer my question, though.

Fine, to you Christianity seems as though it is less flawed than other religions. Quite possible. There are some pretty bizarre ones out there. Personally, I can see plenty of flaws in Christanity, and if I were pinned down to choosing one which made the most sense to me I'd probably go with Buddhism, but that's neither here nor there; the question really isn't about which religion has the most internal consistency...

My question was, is there any chance that despite how committed you are to your faith, it might just be delusion after all, and even if a deity does exist, it's quite possible that none of the world religions has gotten it right?

Given what I know, the odds the God of the Bible being an imaginary being is represented by a number that mathematicians would consider impossible.

Show me how one could mathmatically and objectively calculate said odds. From what I know, the odds are not calculable but through some basic reasoning can be calculated the the God of the Bible is highly improbable...if not actually impossible due to the Epicurus paradox.

One there are over 10000 dieties that mankind has worshipped. All have equal(zero) evidence. That already brings the chances to one tenth of one percent of yours being the right one.

One the God of the Bible has shifted morality multiple times during the bible. This is an indication that it isn't just one entity, or changes based on the culture, which weakens the case of an independently existent entity

God is a supernatural concept. When put to the test, all supernatural concepts fail if they are falsifiable.

The Bible actually disagree with itself, as well as has passages that are not in accordance with observed reality. This also further reduces it as a reliable description of a supernatural transdimention entity.

The Bible was written by a more primitive and backwards people, which reduces the chances of the accurately describing a trans-dentional universe creating entity.

The Universe has billions of stars in it, perhaps trillions. The Bible describe the creation of man as the focus of this, further reducing the probability it is reliable.

While there is no way to actually come up with a hard figure, Bible God isextremely unlikely because of the items I listed above.

Logged

An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

Okay. So do you believe God exists or not ? If not, how did you arrive at that conclusion?

That is a great question. I actually grew up Christian. I went to apologetics seminars and Sunday school classes and studied my Bible. You know what? Not a single Christian has ever been able to provide a rational argument for the existence of Bible God. It is all about fallacy and emotion.

Plus what about the ridiculous claims in the Bible, such as two people having enough of a gene pool to create a population, the Flood, the Exodus, the Virgin Birth, the Resurrection, etc. No proof of these except for circular reasoning that the Bible is true because it is God's Word and God exists because the Bible says so.

We live in the 21st century. It is time to leave behind the archaic mythology of Christ, which is comparable to Mithras, Attis, Dionysus, Horus, Gilgamesh, etc. There, I have answered your question.

Now, your turn. Any proof God exists????

The process you described for deciding that God does not exists is based on the same type of logic and reason that I am accused of using to demonstrate that He does exist. Ultimately, you are using a form of 'faith' to reach that conclusion.

Therefore, for me to offer my proof, which is going to be similar in type and nature to yours, the logical conclusion would be that I am relying on an element of faith just the same as you. Since I contend that you have disproven God's existence to yourself by faith, I cannot provide the type of proof you seek without using my faith.....and that would be talking out both sides of my mouth now, wouldn't it?

No, it isn't based on the same type of logic and reason.

Her reasoning is that she asked certain questions about the bible and god. When she could find no logical answers, or evidence to support the claims made by the bible, she rejected the claims of gods existence. This is what logic dictates should be done.

Your reasoning is that when you ask those same questions and can find no logical answer, or evidence to support the claims of the bible, you decide to believe it anyways because the book told you to. This is not using any sort of logic in any remote sense.

Logic and rational thought are the evidence. What exactly are you looking for....a science experiment that proves something?

Fact: The seasons change.This proves that Hades, Persephone and Ceres are Real! They certainly would have not made it all up, would they? After all, it was inspired by the Gods. How else would we have known it? A science experiment to prove it?

"You play make-believe every day of your life, and yet you have no concept of 'imagination'."I do not have "faith" in science. I have expectations of science. "Faith" in something is an unfounded assertion, whereas reasonable expectations require a precedent.

nice post, Alzael, with the red quotes showing how BS is quite ridiculous. I'm also amused that he is still ignoring posts when they are inconvenient for him, failing to actually show the "logical" reasoning he has, etc. It certainly is SSDD.

If anything, the quality of theists that this god supposedly sends to do its bidding would make one sure that either this god doesn''t exist or isn't quite as advertized.

Logged

"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

nice post, Alzael, with the red quotes showing how BS is quite ridiculous.

Well, I didn't really need the quotes for that, but thank you.

Going over the old threads for the quote was funny. It was amusing to watch how he hasn't changed his tune at all. It's actually kind of amazing how unimaginative he is. I'm actually certain that I could take BS response (if he makes one) and cut and paste an answer someone gave from the thread before, and no one would know the difference.

Logged

"I drank what?!"- Socrates

"Dying for something when you know you'll be resurrected is not a sacrifice.It's a parlour trick."- an aquaintance

Philip of Macedon: (via messenger) If we enter Sparta, we will raze all your buildings and ravage all your women.Spartan Reply: If.

First of all, I just want clarify that I did not indicate that an argument regarding ‘morality’ is proof for the God of the Bible. What I said was that it is ONE of the arguments that forms a convincing case for me.

The idea that ‘evolution’ accounts for our inclination to be moral creatures is a subjective assertion. It seems to be based on a presupposition that since evolution is true then surely it can account for why we make decisions about ‘right’ and ‘wrong.’ First, an evolutionary explanation has not been proven scientifically and, secondly, it is the only non-theist argument that subscribes to subjectivity as a means for explaining anything. This, in itself, seems contradictory to the whole notion that unless something can be tested and verified as true, it is just a guess….something us theists are often criticized for doing. Furthermore, the whole argument made from an evolutionary standpoint seems to violate the law of causality.

I have tried to imagine how morality might have looked in its most raw and primitive form and I have substantial difficulty piecing together a positive progression.

1. If ‘tribal’ survival was enhanced by morality, the why do we find that it is often the case members of a specific group will often disagree with other members of the same group?2. The inclination to care for others would place a burden on that individual and jeopardize that individual’s chance of survival. There may be an argument pertaining to ‘relatives’ but outside of that, there is no logical conclusion to be drawn.3. An ‘ought’ implies forethought that cannot be explained when you factor in the trait of ‘selfishness.’ I ‘ought’ not be selfish because it is beneficial for the group which is beneficial for me. But, if it is beneficial for me, then I am being selfish.

I could go on with many more questions but these are just a few that lack a solid explanation. Again, evolution has thus far failed to account for ‘morality’….which, in combination with other arguments that favor the existence of the God of the Bible, leads to my belief that He exists.

First of all, I just want clarify that I did not indicate that an argument regarding ‘morality’ is proof for the God of the Bible. What I said was that it is ONE of the arguments that forms a convincing case for me.

Among several others, two of the stronger arguments that serve as evidence are the arguments for the existence of 'logic' and 'morality.' Arguments for both having come from God serve as strong evidence for the existence of God.

You said that it was strong evidence for the existence of god. So yes, you did way that was proof for god. You also did not say that it made a convincing case for you. You said that were strong evidence in and of themselves.

At least that's what you said until you got criticized for it. Amazing how your tune always seems to change after that.

First of all, I just want clarify that I did not indicate that an argument regarding ‘morality’ is proof for the God of the Bible. What I said was that it is ONE of the arguments that forms a convincing case for me.

ah, yes, but funny how you've not been able to support any of these mysterious other arguments either.

Quote

Furthermore, the whole argument made from an evolutionary standpoint seems to violate the law of causality.

ROFL. oooh look big sciency words. Please so explain this, BS.

Quote

I have tried to imagine how morality might have looked in its most raw and primitive form and I have substantial difficulty piecing together a positive progression.

1. If ‘tribal’ survival was enhanced by morality, the why do we find that it is often the case members of a specific group will often disagree with other members of the same group?2. The inclination to care for others would place a burden on that individual and jeopardize that individual’s chance of survival. There may be an argument pertaining to ‘relatives’ but outside of that, there is no logical conclusion to be drawn.3. An ‘ought’ implies forethought that cannot be explained when you factor in the trait of ‘selfishness.’ I ‘ought’ not be selfish because it is beneficial for the group which is beneficial for me. But, if it is beneficial for me, then I am being selfish.

I could go on with many more questions but these are just a few that lack a solid explanation. Again, evolution has thus far failed to account for ‘morality’….which, in combination with other arguments that favor the existence of the God of the Bible, leads to my belief that He exists.

hilarious. it seems that all of the explanations of how empathy and civilization works has not been read by BS. #2 is just so pathetic. Holy jumpin' the strawmen.

Logged

"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

It seems to be based on a presupposition that since evolution is true then surely it can account for why we make decisions about ‘right’ and ‘wrong.’

Ahhhh, it seems. Well that's good enough for me. BS says that it seems that way. Given his vast education and knowledge of........ummmm.....uhhhh......well I'm sure he's knowledgeable about something, but clearly it must be true.

This, in itself, seems contradictory to the whole notion that unless something can be tested and verified as true, it is just a guess….something us theists are often criticized for doing.

BS' typical idiotic claims of a double standard when he does not even know the subject he is talking about.

Where morals come from, is fact that can be understood and ascertained by scientific study. We can gather data and test the conclusions because we can see how humans form their morals and how they apply them. These things can be tested.

What those morals are is a subjective thing that cannot be verified scientifically, because they only exist in the mind.

2. The inclination to care for others would place a burden on that individual and jeopardize that individual’s chance of survival. There may be an argument pertaining to ‘relatives’ but outside of that, there is no logical conclusion to be drawn.

Empathy for one thing. We know what pain feels like and don't wish to see others suffer. There's reciprocation, we may need to the same assisstance someday. There's the fact that the person might be contributing aid in some way. Such as someone who was too elderly or sickly to go on the hunt staying behind and teaching/watching the children and in turn being taken care of.

You really can't think of one good reason why you would help out another human being if god didn't tell you to do it, can you? That's what I meant about what a terrible person you reveal yourself to be.

3. An ‘ought’ implies forethought that cannot be explained when you factor in the trait of ‘selfishness.’ I ‘ought’ not be selfish because it is beneficial for the group which is beneficial for me. But, if it is beneficial for me, then I am being selfish.

Our basic impulses are selfish. However we have higher impulses as well, that we've developed as our brains have. Such as the aforementioned empathy.

Also this doesn't fly since your view of morality is equally selfish, if not outright amoral.

I could go on with many more questions but these are just a few that lack a solid explanation. Again, evolution has thus far failed to account for ‘morality’….which, in combination with other arguments that favor the existence of the God of the Bible, leads to my belief that He exists.

They don't lack explanation. You just didn't bother to think about them. There's a difference. Don't assume that your willing lack of intellect is universal.

As I pointed out with number 2. The fact that you asked that question means that you failed to think of one single reason to actually help another being without a command from god. I gave you three just off the top of my head. Not to mention that these questions have been asked by you before, and answered by others before, and the answers ignored by you before.

Bringing up the same arguments that were stupid back then doesn't make them any smarter now.

« Last Edit: November 22, 2011, 12:12:47 PM by Alzael »

Logged

"I drank what?!"- Socrates

"Dying for something when you know you'll be resurrected is not a sacrifice.It's a parlour trick."- an aquaintance

Philip of Macedon: (via messenger) If we enter Sparta, we will raze all your buildings and ravage all your women.Spartan Reply: If.

I have a question for those who've said that morality comes from (christian) god.

If this is so, why do non-christian societies also have morals that we would recognize as such? Why are some of these societies more peaceful, kinder, more gentle than ours? The ones I know of include tropical tribal societies where resources like food are readily available. Some of these societies don't even have a word for war. They don't have a bible, they hadn't heard of the christian god when they were discovered by the western world ... how is that explained?

Logged

If we ever travel thousands of light years to a planet inhabited by intelligent life, let's just make patterns in their crops and leave.

I have a question for those who've said that morality comes from (christian) god.

If this is so, why do non-christian societies also have morals that we would recognize as such? Why are some of these societies more peaceful, kinder, more gentle than ours? The ones I know of include tropical tribal societies where resources like food are readily available. Some of these societies don't even have a word for war. They don't have a bible, they hadn't heard of the christian god when they were discovered by the western world ... how is that explained?

Because we believe that God created us all with a sense of 'right' and 'wrong'....Christian or not.Some societies have (with or without acknowledging God) embraced it better than others.

Because we believe that God created us all with a sense of 'right' and 'wrong'....Christian or not.Some societies have (with or without acknowledging God) embraced it better than others.

Um, what? So, people who aren't Christians...are Christians? I don't understand. Okay, maybe you're not saying that, perhaps you're saying morality is objective all according to the Christian God and that it doesn't matter if we believe in it or not?

Because we believe that God created us all with a sense of 'right' and 'wrong'....Christian or not.Some societies have (with or without acknowledging God) embraced it better than others.

Um, what? So, people who aren't Christians...are Christians? I don't understand. Okay, maybe you're not saying that, perhaps you're saying morality is objective all according to the Christian God and that it doesn't matter if we believe in it or not?

But BS, that's BS!

What I'm saying is that ALL people were created by God and equipped with, built with, an ability to understand and embrace what is 'right' and what is 'wrong' according to the moral standards He has set.

Because we believe that God created us all with a sense of 'right' and 'wrong'....Christian or not.Some societies have (with or without acknowledging God) embraced it better than others.

And it's amazing that societies with a higher percentage of atheists are better in just about everything than societies with a higher percentage of theists.

Do you have some stats for this? I don't have anything that demonstrates that one way or the other but from what I recollect, there have been contentions that largely atheistic societies tend to collapse. Do you have some stats?...I'd be interested in seeing them. Thanks.

Do you have some stats for this? I don't have anything that demonstrates that one way or the other but from what I recollect, there have been contentions that largely atheistic societies tend to collapse. Do you have some stats?...I'd be interested in seeing them. Thanks.

This is within the USA.You can also go on Wikipedia and check lists of countries by religion and the GPI[1] and you'll see that there's an undeniable correlation.

What I'm saying is that ALL people were created by God and equipped with, built with, an ability to understand and embrace what is 'right' and what is 'wrong' according to the moral standards He has set.

Um..so, I guess people who loved killing Native Americans and depriving them of their resources were given their excellent moral compasses by God? I suppose that's right..

But then BS, you said this:

Quote

Some societies have (with or without acknowledging God) embraced it better than others.

So what happened with the omniscient God's plans?

And also:

Quote

Because we believe that God created us all with a sense of 'right' and 'wrong'....Christian or not.

Who is the 'we' you're talking about here? Humanity in general? Hate to break it to you but this doesn't make any sense.

And, please, I would like to know the name of the topic we were touching on earlier so I can, as you told me, "do a Google search" on it and learn more.

This guy doesn't make an argument for God using the issue of morality but he does make a good case. He is an athiest. I had posted this in another thread some time back but thought it was worthwhile to post again.

What I'm saying is that ALL people were created by God and equipped with, built with, an ability to understand and embrace what is 'right' and what is 'wrong' according to the moral standards He has set.

Um..so, I guess people who loved killing Native Americans and depriving them of their resources were given their excellent moral compasses by God? I suppose that's right..

Yes, unfortunately, none of us seem to use that compass all too well.....hence the problem of sin.

Quote

But then BS, you said this:

Quote

Some societies have (with or without acknowledging God) embraced it better than others.

So what happened with the omniscient God's plans?

I think you know the answer to that from a Christian perspective. I addressed it earlier in this thread.

Quote

And also:

Quote

Because we believe that God created us all with a sense of 'right' and 'wrong'....Christian or not.

Who is the 'we' you're talking about here? Humanity in general? Hate to break it to you but this doesn't make any sense.

We = Christians and any other religion that acknowledges Yahweh.

Quote

And, please, I would like to know the name of the topic we were touching on earlier so I can, as you told me, "do a Google search" on it and learn more.

There is no "name" for it. It comes in many flavors and sizes. It involves the calculation of probabilities associated with the likelihood of God's existence.

Because we believe that God created us all with a sense of 'right' and 'wrong'....Christian or not.Some societies have (with or without acknowledging God) embraced it better than others.

Oh yes, I also forgot to mention that this statement as well also puts holes in your arguments for objective morality. Seriously, BS learn what that actually means. You just embarrass yourself like this.

« Last Edit: November 22, 2011, 02:16:04 PM by Alzael »

Logged

"I drank what?!"- Socrates

"Dying for something when you know you'll be resurrected is not a sacrifice.It's a parlour trick."- an aquaintance

Philip of Macedon: (via messenger) If we enter Sparta, we will raze all your buildings and ravage all your women.Spartan Reply: If.

Yes, unfortunately, none of us seem to use that compass all too well.....hence the problem of sin.

The same moral compass that gave God no sleeping troubles at night after he supposedly drowned the entire planet, killed off entire peoples, assisted in genocides, approved of slavery, approved of the repression of women, ordained sacrificed offerings and seemingly had no qualms with various genocides throughout history that involve Christians and his chosen people?

Quote

I think you know the answer to that from a Christian perspective. I addressed it earlier in this thread.

Yes, the answer doesn't make sense.

Quote

We = Christians and any other religion that acknowledges Yahweh.

But you said whether we believe in Yahweh or not. That implies you included Hindus, Buddhists and others or you're postulating that there are "true" Christians and "fake" ones. And which religions?

Quote

There is no "name" for it. It comes in many flavors and sizes. It involves the calculation of probabilities associated with the likelihood of God's existence.

The same moral compass that gave God no sleeping troubles at night after he supposedly drowned the entire planet, killed off entire peoples, assisted in genocides, approved of slavery, approved of the repression of women, ordained sacrificed offerings and seemingly had no qualms with various genocides throughout history that involve Christians and his chosen people?

Kindly explain how you know the makeup or operation of God's moral compass. You seem to presume that it is the same as mine or yours? God is not a physical being with the same limited mind and abilities. I will use the example of 'imminent domain' to illustrate. You have no legal right to arbitrarily seize another person's property thus making any effort to do so 'wrong.' However, the very authoritative bodies that declare it wrong for you and I are able to seize or claim property within the confines of the law. Another example: I can tell my children that arguing with an adult is 'wrong' but I can argue with another adult and not be wrong. In other words, the maker of the 'right' and 'wrong' may not necessarily be bound to them in the same manner as those to whom the maker has given the standards to.

And, for the record, I am in no way conceding that the accusations you made against God are true.

Quote

But you said whether we believe in Yahweh or not. That implies you included Hindus, Buddhists and others or you're postulating that there are "true" Christians and "fake" ones. And which religions?

The non-theist account for morality lacks any consensus and all assertions are subjective. There are many different people making many different ‘guesses.’ For example, to cite a few, Dawkins says it stems from a selfish gene, Ruse says it is an evolutionary illusion, Walter Sinnott says morality just simply “is,” and the author of the article I linked to above says [atheists) should just be silent about it because they cannot account for it.

The only consensus seems to be that “evolution diddit”….which amounts to nothing more than an opinion.